Posted by Adm. on August 9, 2005, 4:35 am, in reply to "An attempt at some insights" (First, thanks for the article you made reference to above. I’ve reproduced it on another thread on this board. A while ago I meant to begin a file of news articles relevant to the board’s topic, but have been busy with many things. I’ll be getting to work on that little by little.) In the post above that I began a few days ago, I started to say that since I gathered that your parents weren’t among those vehemently opposed to the idea of you being taken on such an outing (the “nudist colony,” as they were called in those days), whether consciously or unconsciously, their attitude about it—which is a somewhat more casual attitude than many parents would have had—must have been transmitted to you to some degree during your upbringing, and led to the formation of your viewpoint about it—that is, not being thrown into a total state of horror and shock at the idea of nudity in and of itself, and it probably contributed to your not perceiving the two situations in your adolescence as threatening, and therefore to your not feeling traumatized by them. In the case of the young man at the library when you were 12 years old, you say, I remember thinking something like, ‘Whoa... why is he doing that?’ ...I just figured that I was interrupting something that wasn’t really my business.... So due to the naďveté of the age you were, at the time, you didn’t realize he was doing it on purpose. Perhaps thinking he was either about to use the garden as a urinal or was adjusting his pants and it slipped out or something, his behavior didn’t appear to your young mind to go out of the bounds of something a person would have a legitimate reason for doing (even though he may still have appeared to be being a little sloppy or careless by doing it in public) and that was why it didn’t strike you as a sexual assault, as some victims imagine, meaning done with the intent that it was going to lead to a more serious crime. I also see, on the other hand, that although your parents weren’t so worried about nudity in naturist situations, they do appear to be frightened at the new relationship you have with your friend who was arrested for indecent exposure. I’ve been told in no uncertain terms to steer clear of one of my best friends because of it... not because of any danger he represents to me, but because of the risk of scrutiny by law enforcement that my family fears he brings by his presence. Is this fair? Is it even true? Anytime parents forbid their children to carry on a friendship with someone, it can cause friction. In some cases some prohibitions on the part of parents from seeing someone may be justifiable, in other cases they may not be. A 15-year-old girl who thinks she’s in love with a sailor whose ship is docked in town for a month or two and believes him when he says his feelings about a romantic relationship with her are honest and sincere? A case like that, I would agree with the parents in forbidding her from seeing him. The girl hasn’t had enough experience yet to know what’s really going on in the man’s mind (or glands). A son or daughter who has a friendship or romance with someone of a different race, and it is a person of good character and integrity, but the parents just don’t like people of different races? A case like that, I would disagree with the parents. To judge someone as evil because of a category the person was born in would be acting with prejudice that would be unjustifiable. Two opposite extremes, but the situation you’re in, somewhere in between? They seem to know that your friend is nonviolent and that you’re not in any danger of him harming you. The risk of scrutiny of you or your family by law enforcement? I think this is an unfounded fear. Obviously, your family must not be involved in any illegal operations of any kind—which strikes me as the only reason someone would really have for fearing police scrutiny. If they’re not into anything illegal, what would they have to fear if the police were to survey them once in a while? Would they even know it? If it were a case of him belonging to an international drug-dealing ring, people who commit all kinds of the most serious crimes as part of their operations, then there is a good likelihood law enforcement might be surveying you. But a nonviolent crime such as public indecency, whose perpetrators are rarely found to be involved in anything more serious, and which in most states is classified as a misdemeanor, in some places punishable only by a small fine, if anything? Doubtful. You know, the police force has to pay the salaries of agents who set up stake-outs and hide and watch with their binoculars everything somebody is doing, to see if they’re involved in any crimes. It costs them money to do things like that, and they have to use taxpayers’ money to do it with. From time to time they have to answer to the taxpayers about how their money is being used. They need to be using it efficiently. The police know the statistics, that with exhibitionists there’s no greater probability of involvement in organized crime or highly serious offenses warranting such surveillance than there is with any other member of the public. It would be a poor use of taxpayer moneys to send agents out to do surveillance on everyone who comes into the acquaintance of a man because he was once arrested for public indecency. I think this reason that your parents are giving you is unfounded. But a real concern they may have may be the fear of what friends and neighbors may think about your associations with him. Or perhaps they could be worried that you might become romantically involved with him and the next thing they know they’ll be facing the dilemma of having a man with this on his record as a prospective son-in-law? Even if the relationship you have with him is only a platonic relationship, parents sometimes have these worries. Considering how the situation must look from their angle, I can understand how they feel, though I have to say that not all of their conclusions are entirely accurate. Now, to advise you in this case to disobey your parents and maintain your relationship with your friend? To advise anyone to disobey their parents about anything is something I will hesitate before doing. I wish there were more I could do to help, but not being there, not knowing and being on a friendly relationship with your family, what good is the opinion of an outsider really going to be to them? Maybe you could mention to them some of the points I’ve mentioned above and see if it helps any. I don’t know and I can’t ask... the handful of people who need to know are directly involved.... There’s another thing I’m wondering about: How did your parents find out about his record? Did they go down to the police station and request it to be shown them? Do they do that with everyone their children come into acquaintance with? Usually the offenders don’t go around announcing to everyone they meet about the little stain on their police record. I’m angry that our state’s legal system makes this a felony—you know, like murder and rape—and basically wrecks someone’s life forever. Interestingly, in the article from U.S. News you listed in your post below, it was the former prosecutor involved in the cases who made the complaint that the program makes unjust overgeneralizations about those convicted and includes people who were only guilty of minor offenses. (One he mentioned was skinny-dipping in someone’s backyard pool when two little 12-year-old girls peek through the fence and see. A felony? Lifetime probation and polygraph and plethysmograph tests for the rest of their lives? I think the majority of society will be willing to concede that that’s overdoing it a little for an incident like that.) If it were only the defendants involved in the cases who were making the complaint, society would probably wave them off as nothing but a bunch of criminals sitting around bellyaching because the judicial system hands out a punishment to them as it should. But it wasn’t. It was the prosecuting attorney who made the point. That will carry a lot more weight in the opinions of those who decide. The prosecuting attorney is a law specialist appointed by the state governor to try to seek punishments that are as harsh as are necessary in order to put up a reasonable attempt to deter others from committing the crime, as well as deter the offender from repeating the offense, in any given case. And in his professional opinion, he is now stating that the judicial system is issuing excessive punishments. His statements could possibly mean a chance at making the situation in Arizona perhaps a little more reasonable. Yes, I think a large sector of society would agree that one goes a little on the excessive side. Well, I hope this can help you in some way. And maybe your friend might be interested in reading or participating on this board also? David Parker Link: Post a response
Message modified by board administrator August 9, 2005, 4:39 am
Resuming where I left off....
David Parker April 30, 2001, 8:47 pm
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
